Just thought I’d let you guys in on the new channel Scott hs just opened up.
Seems like there’s some usefull info on there.
nothin but a blank white box for me
An old excerpt from Abel - my favorite:
By now everyone will acknowledge that the nervous system optimizes control of muscles involved in exercise (Komi 1992, Sales 1992, Lamb 1984, Behn 1995). If this is true than it follows that the nervous system is responsible for the intensity produced in a given activity. Basmajian (1977) believes that a mosaic of spinal motorneurons is dedicated to the learned response of a specific posture or movement of a joint through space. If this is true then it has tremendous implications for resistance training athletes seeking to maximize performance, either in increased strength or greater hypertrophy. Basmajian’s claims can be expounded upon to understand both systemic and body part specific adaptations to resistance training that are not musculoskeletal in nature.
Romeny et al 1982 showed that the distribution of motor units activated within the muscle was related to the nature of the task performed. For the uninitiated reader a motor unit is composed of a nerve cell, a motor neuron and the muscle fibers, which it innervates. Not only is the distribution of motor units within a muscle important for their selected activity; but for an agonist muscle to produce its greatest possible force, all of the motor units in the muscle must be activated. (Paton and Brown 1995, Nardone 1989, Behn 1991, Sale 1982, 1987) To understand maximum fiber recruitment, understand that each motor unit contains a few to several hundred thousand muscle fibers. Muscles contain a few hundred thousand muscle fibers; thus each muscle is comprised of a few to several hundred motor units.
Achieving maximum fiber recruitment, or what I call maximum voluntary neural activation, is an adaptive process of the nervous system to training stimuli. Compound this with the fact that there may be as many subunits of a muscle as there are motor units (Paton and Brown 1995) and soon you get the notion that there is exactness to the way the nervous system adapts to training stimuli. Therefore, it makes sense that there should be exactness to; training programs in order to capitalize on these adaptations and be able to improve in a linear progressive sense. As far as neural adaptations to training goes, increased activation of agonists could take the form of recruitment of high threshold units not previously recruitable or increased firing rates of units, both of which are adaptive processes.
It seems larger muscles may generally rely more on recruitment for increases in force output. (Binder et al 1978, Hannery 1974, Behn 1995). Any increases in firing frequency (a.k.a. rate coding) with resistance training would not seem to contribute to increase force output, but rather improved rate of force output. (Miller et al 1981, Behm 1995). Both of the above points have a profound influence on resistance training, especially in relation to training for hypertrophy. Behn 1995 observed that "trained subjects could more effectively activate their quadriceps immediately after an exhaustive submaximal fatigue protocolâ?¦. This may suggest a stronger neural drive following fatigue in trained individuals, (1995 pp265) this is yet another adaptation to training which is neurologically based and which obviously influence performances. Capitalizing on the adaptations of the nervous system to training, by pre-programming specific training regimens to induce changes which result in greater workload capacity would obviously be of benefit to any athlete who wishes to maximize performance by teaching his body how to handle greater workloads, and how to receive greater benefits from the workloads he is handling. These are the most core principles of Innervation Training Methodology.
Un-fucking-readable!
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Un-fucking-readable![/quote]
LOL. Yeah, even as someone who can usually handle the scientific 20 dollar word stuff I found myself reading maybe the first sentence of each paragraph, maybe skimming a little more to see if he said anything interesting, and then moving on to the next paragraph.
Abel has an uncanny ability to make simple subjects into mindbogglingly overcomplicated novels, which just seem to run in circles and never really get to the point.
I have a background in the life sciences, and I still think that this sort of writing is uncalled for, especially for a website like the now-defunct Anabolic Extreme!
Does ONE sentence in that excerpt provide any USEFUL and APPLICABLE information to us as bodybuilders or fitness enthusiasts? No, not one!
Ever try reading his blog? Most of it’s made up of self-aggrandizing, obnoxious ramblings detailing his never-ending achievement in life and career and how most of the world isn’t as advanced and special as bodybuilders and human beings as he and his clients are. Notice that tone in the articles he has written for T-mag - everyone else is a jerk-off that doesn’t know how to train properly.
He also likes to add to his mystique as a trainer by creating his own training vocabulary that none of us care about - terms like max load, joint-stress transfer, maximum voluntary neural activation, segmentation, and the like.
I give credit to Scott because he practices what he preaches, loves what he does, and has gotten people into shape. But I don’t care for his pedantic writing style and pompousness.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
An old excerpt from Abel - my favorite:
By now everyone will acknowledge that the nervous system optimizes control of muscles involved in exercise (Komi 1992, Sales 1992, Lamb 1984, Behn 1995). If this is true than it follows that the nervous system is responsible for the intensity produced in a given activity. Basmajian (1977) believes that a mosaic of spinal motorneurons is dedicated to the learned response of a specific posture or movement of a joint through space. If this is true then it has tremendous implications for resistance training athletes seeking to maximize performance, either in increased strength or greater hypertrophy. Basmajian’s claims can be expounded upon to understand both systemic and body part specific adaptations to resistance training that are not musculoskeletal in nature.
Romeny et al 1982 showed that the distribution of motor units activated within the muscle was related to the nature of the task performed. For the uninitiated reader a motor unit is composed of a nerve cell, a motor neuron and the muscle fibers, which it innervates. Not only is the distribution of motor units within a muscle important for their selected activity; but for an agonist muscle to produce its greatest possible force, all of the motor units in the muscle must be activated. (Paton and Brown 1995, Nardone 1989, Behn 1991, Sale 1982, 1987) To understand maximum fiber recruitment, understand that each motor unit contains a few to several hundred thousand muscle fibers. Muscles contain a few hundred thousand muscle fibers; thus each muscle is comprised of a few to several hundred motor units.
Achieving maximum fiber recruitment, or what I call maximum voluntary neural activation, is an adaptive process of the nervous system to training stimuli. Compound this with the fact that there may be as many subunits of a muscle as there are motor units (Paton and Brown 1995) and soon you get the notion that there is exactness to the way the nervous system adapts to training stimuli. Therefore, it makes sense that there should be exactness to; training programs in order to capitalize on these adaptations and be able to improve in a linear progressive sense. As far as neural adaptations to training goes, increased activation of agonists could take the form of recruitment of high threshold units not previously recruitable or increased firing rates of units, both of which are adaptive processes.
It seems larger muscles may generally rely more on recruitment for increases in force output. (Binder et al 1978, Hannery 1974, Behn 1995). Any increases in firing frequency (a.k.a. rate coding) with resistance training would not seem to contribute to increase force output, but rather improved rate of force output. (Miller et al 1981, Behm 1995). Both of the above points have a profound influence on resistance training, especially in relation to training for hypertrophy. Behn 1995 observed that "trained subjects could more effectively activate their quadriceps immediately after an exhaustive submaximal fatigue protocolâ?¦. This may suggest a stronger neural drive following fatigue in trained individuals, (1995 pp265) this is yet another adaptation to training which is neurologically based and which obviously influence performances. Capitalizing on the adaptations of the nervous system to training, by pre-programming specific training regimens to induce changes which result in greater workload capacity would obviously be of benefit to any athlete who wishes to maximize performance by teaching his body how to handle greater workloads, and how to receive greater benefits from the workloads he is handling. These are the most core principles of Innervation Training Methodology. [/quote]
THIS IS IT! Finally, the key to unlocking everything. Every secret I’ve ever wanted to know the answer to. Read this. Re-read it. All of you. Memorize it. Tell all your buddies. In fact, I suspect from now on there will be no more traffic on these boards because everything you need to know is in these concise paragraphs of extreme wisdom. Wow. Just wow.
After making my brain bleed by reading that I learned that pre exhausting a muscle may allow for better recruitment of said muscle. Wow, he writes “worse” than Bill Roberts haha.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
An old excerpt from Abel - my favorite:
By now everyone will acknowledge that the nervous system optimizes control of muscles involved in exercise (Komi 1992, Sales 1992, Lamb 1984, Behn 1995). If this is true than it follows that the nervous system is responsible for the intensity produced in a given activity. Basmajian (1977) believes that a mosaic of spinal motorneurons is dedicated to the learned response of a specific posture or movement of a joint through space. If this is true then it has tremendous implications for resistance training athletes seeking to maximize performance, either in increased strength or greater hypertrophy. Basmajian’s claims can be expounded upon to understand both systemic and body part specific adaptations to resistance training that are not musculoskeletal in nature.
Romeny et al 1982 showed that the distribution of motor units activated within the muscle was related to the nature of the task performed. For the uninitiated reader a motor unit is composed of a nerve cell, a motor neuron and the muscle fibers, which it innervates. Not only is the distribution of motor units within a muscle important for their selected activity; but for an agonist muscle to produce its greatest possible force, all of the motor units in the muscle must be activated. (Paton and Brown 1995, Nardone 1989, Behn 1991, Sale 1982, 1987) To understand maximum fiber recruitment, understand that each motor unit contains a few to several hundred thousand muscle fibers. Muscles contain a few hundred thousand muscle fibers; thus each muscle is comprised of a few to several hundred motor units.
Achieving maximum fiber recruitment, or what I call maximum voluntary neural activation, is an adaptive process of the nervous system to training stimuli. Compound this with the fact that there may be as many subunits of a muscle as there are motor units (Paton and Brown 1995) and soon you get the notion that there is exactness to the way the nervous system adapts to training stimuli. Therefore, it makes sense that there should be exactness to; training programs in order to capitalize on these adaptations and be able to improve in a linear progressive sense. As far as neural adaptations to training goes, increased activation of agonists could take the form of recruitment of high threshold units not previously recruitable or increased firing rates of units, both of which are adaptive processes.
It seems larger muscles may generally rely more on recruitment for increases in force output. (Binder et al 1978, Hannery 1974, Behn 1995). Any increases in firing frequency (a.k.a. rate coding) with resistance training would not seem to contribute to increase force output, but rather improved rate of force output. (Miller et al 1981, Behm 1995). Both of the above points have a profound influence on resistance training, especially in relation to training for hypertrophy. Behn 1995 observed that "trained subjects could more effectively activate their quadriceps immediately after an exhaustive submaximal fatigue protocol�¢?�¦. This may suggest a stronger neural drive following fatigue in trained individuals, (1995 pp265) this is yet another adaptation to training which is neurologically based and which obviously influence performances. Capitalizing on the adaptations of the nervous system to training, by pre-programming specific training regimens to induce changes which result in greater workload capacity would obviously be of benefit to any athlete who wishes to maximize performance by teaching his body how to handle greater workloads, and how to receive greater benefits from the workloads he is handling. These are the most core principles of Innervation Training Methodology. [/quote]
Totally unreadable! Long-winded, dense, intellectual snobbery that doesn’t seem to make a point.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I have a background in the life sciences, and I still think that this sort of writing is uncalled for, especially for a website like the now-defunct Anabolic Extreme!
Does ONE sentence in that excerpt provide any USEFUL and APPLICABLE information to us as bodybuilders or fitness enthusiasts? No, not one!
Ever try reading his blog? Most of it’s made up of self-aggrandizing, obnoxious ramblings detailing his never-ending achievement in life and career and how most of the world isn’t as advanced and special as bodybuilders and human beings as he and his clients are. Notice that tone in the articles he has written for T-mag - everyone else is a jerk-off that doesn’t know how to train properly.
He also likes to add to his mystique as a trainer by creating his own training vocabulary that none of us care about - terms like max load, joint-stress transfer, maximum voluntary neural activation, segmentation, and the like.
I give credit to Scott because he practices what he preaches, loves what he does, and has gotten people into shape. But I don’t care for his pedantic writing style and pompousness. [/quote]
I have to admit I laughed once I began reading it. It’s so tiresome and truly goes nowhere. lol
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Wow, he writes “worse” than Bill Roberts haha.[/quote]
Hahaha. I don’t even read Bill’s posts anymore… it hurts my brain.
Another excerpt from an old interview I read at age 20 (I had no idea what he was talking about then either):
AE: Why don’t you tell me a little bit about Innervation Training?
SCOTT: Ok, Innervation Training is a methodology of training that I developed over the course of years. I had always had this thing in my head, but could never put a handle on it and definitely couldn’t bring it together as a theoretical modality that people could follow. Then there was a bunch of research brought to my attention and the basic one was called functional differentiation.
The given theory in bodybuilding and strength sports were wrong because they focused so much on muscular skeletal considerations, whereas if you look at the overall picture, muscles are more effected by neuronal variables, neuro-muscular items than they are muscular skeletal. I always felt like the theorists and experts were missing the point, they’re kind of looking at a snapshot and deciding it explains everything, when it’s really a descriptive phenomenon, whereas what’s really going on in the body is more like a video.
The nervous system can explain that better. I looked at independent variables, what’s affecting what, and I just thought, for the longest time that the experts were missing the boat by focusing on the muscles themselves. Thanks to this research, I was able to back-up a lot of what I had to say. It required me revamping a lot of my own workouts and stuff, but now I’ve got it down to a real science where I can apply it to everybody at their level.
The other problem that exists out there, is that you’ve got a lot of media created icons and experts who haven’t the foggiest idea of the science involved. They get people calling their way of training a “system” of training, when it’s not a system at all because it can’t be applied to everybody. For instance, Heavy Duty. That’s not a system of training because it leaves out too much.
I never made this stuff complicated. Perhaps the “theorists” Abel speaks of and he make this shit complicated. But the thing is that NO successful bodybuilder or powerlifter has EVER made this shit as complicated as a Mars mission.
What I can’t understand is why all this scientific gobbledygook is even spoken of, when one can simply recommend what every successful bodybuilder ever did and does - 2 to 4 exercises per muscle group for a few sets of 6 to 15 reps!
Is this stuff even work thinking about?
AE: So one of the aspects of Innervation Training would be that as you become more advanced, you learn how to train muscles more intensely?
SCOTT: I wouldn’t say you learn, your muscle adopt specifically to the type of stress their under. Which again, these things can lead us into patterns that will last an hour in terms of explanation. Between a beginner and an advanced athlete the point I’m making is, calling myself an advanced athlete, if I do a set of 10, and we broke it down and attached electrodes to my muscles, my first rep and my 10th rep would be of almost equal intensity, other than fatigue. All the large fibers had been recruited and will no longer function. Whereas, you take a beginner or intermediate, you know someone that you know, and you can tell just by the way their training that the first five of six reps are relatively easy. Rep number 6 maybe gets difficult, rep number 7 gets a lot slower, rep number 8 is even slower. While an advanced athlete from rep 1-10 is functioning at a high level of intensity and getting the optimum training efficiency percentage, a beginner or intermediate, getting four out of those 10 reps are all out adaptation reps that are forcing the body to respond so he’s getting like a 40% training efficiency percentage because he’s still in the quantitative learning.
“SCOTT: You know, everywhere I go I get confused all the time with Greg Kovacs or Craig Titus, it’s quite funny. I have a very, very advanced physique in terms of maturity, I have a very small waist and stuff like that. Everywhere I go, it’s pretty funny”
QUANTITATIVE LEARNING!
"AE: Well, from what I’ve seen and from what I know, people at the top of the sport, at the national and professional level, understand that. I think that the myth of these athletes staying within 10 lbs of their contest bodyweight is something that’s perpetrated by the media and the supplement companies because they want everyone to believe that these athletes aren’t blowing up in the offseason. You see that as well, right?
SCOTT: Oh yeah! And those same principals are even more important for someone who’s less genetically advantaged. They don’t seem to get that, and that’s the problem right there. You know, and advanced guy can put away the mirror for a year and still look good in a sweatshirt or baggy T-shirt, he still looks like a bodybuilder, he’s huge. But you know, a person who’s not as genetically advanced or as far along in their career is not going to look so cosmetically pleasing in the bulk-up phase. But they’ve got to decide what they want to devoteâ?¦…this is what our sport entails. If you’re going to devote yourself to improving, then do it! If not, then take up something else. I mean the other side to that is, it’s possible in a certain way, but you would have to be monitored constantly, and the pros just aren’t that knowledgeable. Contrary to popular belief, a pro card doesn’t come with a PhD in nutrition."
I’m assuming that what he’s trying to say is that a Phd in nutrition does give one the competence to competently monitor their own nutrition. But Abel doesn’t have one degree in nutrition.
You do realize that half the things you are writing about Abel is support of a lot of things Thibaudeau is saying these days.
Those things weren’t written by me. They are direct quotes of what HE said.
Yeah, so he says that the nervous system should be taken into account when designing a program. But he sure says it a far more drawn-out manner than simply saying: “The nervous system should be taken into account when designing a program.”
I really don’t bother with ridiculous amounts of thinking when designing a program, and neither has any other successful lifter.
I said it before, and I’ll say it again! Nearly all successful bodybuilders follow the same formula:
4 to 6 days per week of training.
2 to 4 exercises per muscle group.
2 to 3 muscle groups trained at a session.
3 to 4 sets of 6 to 15 reps.
THAT’S IT! Show me one Olympia competitor that doesn’t abide by these guidelines. Show me one that is up to his neck in the minutia of exercise science–visiting medical libraries of Ivy League schools–to learn the ins and outs of training and nutrition.
I don’t know who said this but “If you can’t explain this to some 5-10 year old do you really think you know what your talking about?” Or somewhere on the lines of that. I think I remember Chris C (member) mom said that when I was reading his post. I could be totally wrong. Because really, most people that come in the gym looking for PTing don’t have a clue.
@Brick
I think his reasoning to sounding “smart” is to attract more customers. If I were to be trained by him a couple sessions and he talked to me in the manner he writes, I for one would forget once going on my own. Just the way I see it. I to am a person that enjoys using the principle K.I.S.S.